THE ACIT,CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S PRAKASH OILS LTD., DHAR

In the result, the above captioned appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

40a(ia) of Rs.5,21,63,633/-” 11. The ld. CIT-DR submitted that the ld. First appellate authority has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act by overlooking the findings of the AO. The ld. CIT-DR further submitted that the the Ld. CIT(A) has also erred

DCIT-4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. MARAL OVERSEAS LTD, KHARGONE

In the result appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshidcit-4(1), Indore Maral Overseas Ltd., बनाम/ Maral Sarovar, V& Po Vs. Khalbujurg, Kasrawad, Khargone, Bhopal

section 36, or, as required by or under any other law for the time being is force", The contribution of Rs. 1,45,87,125/- was not made by the assessee in approved gratuity found, it is being disallowed and an amount of Rs. 1,45,87,125/-is added back to the taxable income of the assessee.” Page

THE DCIT1(1), INDORE vs. SHRI RAVI ARORA, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2011-12 Dcit-5(1), Shri Ravi Arora, Indore 1007, Khatiwala Tank, बनाम/ 236, Indraprasth Tower, 6, M.G. Road, Vs. Indore. (Revenue / Appellant) (Assessee / Respondent) Pan: Agdpa8921H Assessee By Shri Yash Kukreja, Ca & Shri Hitesh Chimnani, Adv & Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri P.K.Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 04.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.07.2023

section 40A(3) of the I. T. Act.” 2. Heard the learned Representatives of both sides at length and case- records perused. 3. Brief facts leading to present appeal are such that the assessee- individual submitted his return of income declaring a total income of Rs. 17,29,650/- which was subjected to scrutiny assessment u/s 143(2). Finally

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

40A(3) and Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act cannot be said to be justified in view of the observations made hereinabove. Further, we find that the findings recorded by the Ld. CIT(A) have not been controverted by the Ld.CIT-DR by bringing any contrary material on record. Hence, we do not find any infirmity

THE AIT,ENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SURYA INFRAVENTURE P LTD, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

40A(3) and Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act cannot be said to be justified in view of the observations made hereinabove. Further, we find that the findings recorded by the Ld. CIT(A) have not been controverted by the Ld.CIT-DR by bringing any contrary material on record. Hence, we do not find any infirmity

THE ACIT, CIRCLE 2(1), INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

40A(3) and Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act cannot be said to be justified in view of the observations made hereinabove. Further, we find that the findings recorded by the Ld. CIT(A) have not been controverted by the Ld.CIT-DR by bringing any contrary material on record. Hence, we do not find any infirmity

ACIT CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SARTHAK INNOVATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

68,732/- 18 3. Shri Utpal Goyal 1,31,868/- 18 4. Shri Narendra Barta 8,58,336/- 16 Total 45,65,847/- 5. According to the Ld. AO, such excess interest to the persons covered under Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act was not available in terms of the provisions of the said Section and thus

ACIT CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SARTHAK INNOVATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

68,732/- 18 3. Shri Utpal Goyal 1,31,868/- 18 4. Shri Narendra Barta 8,58,336/- 16 Total 45,65,847/- 5. According to the Ld. AO, such excess interest to the persons covered under Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act was not available in terms of the provisions of the said Section and thus

DCIT CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SARTHAK INNOVATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

68,732/- 18 3. Shri Utpal Goyal 1,31,868/- 18 4. Shri Narendra Barta 8,58,336/- 16 Total 45,65,847/- 5. According to the Ld. AO, such excess interest to the persons covered under Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act was not available in terms of the provisions of the said Section and thus

THE ACIT-5(1), INDORE vs. M/S. SUNDERDEEP CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result all the grounds raised by the Revenue are

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2012-13

40A(3) of the Act at Rs.4,26,000/- , addition u/s 68 of the Act on account of bogus cash credit introduced in the books of account at Rs.2,76,42,000/- and addition of bogus creditors at Rs.83,05,400/- . Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and succeeded. 3. Now the revenue is in appeal before

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 2(1), INDORE vs. M/S. IDEAL ASHIYANA PRIVATE LIMITED, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2013-14 Acit-2(1) M/S Ideal Ashiyana Indore Private Ltd., Indore बनाम/ Vs. (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) Pan: Aadci 0029 F Assessee By Shri Pankaj Shah, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Date Of Final Hearing 27.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 15.12.2022

section 40A(3) by ignoring the findings of Assessing Officer in the assessment order.” 2. Heard the learned Representatives of both sides at length on 15.09.2022 and the case was adjourned to 21.09.2022 for final hearing. On 21.09.2022, the case was again adjourned to 26.09.2022 at the request of Ld. DR. On 26.09.2022, none appeared on behalf of revenue

RECONNECT ENERGY SOLUTION P LT,BENGALURU vs. THE DCIT 4(1) INDORE, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of assesse is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Raoreconnect Energy Solution Ltd. Dcit 1(4) No.22, Vk Kalyani, 7Th Floor Indore Vs. Sankey Road, Bengaluru (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aafcr 0074 H Assessee By Shri Anil Khandelwal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 06.12.2023

7,63,646 on adhoc basis under sec. 40a ia..” Page 1 of 12 Reconnect Energy solution P. Ltd. Page 2 of 12 2. Ground no.1 is regarding the addition made u/s 56(2)(viib) of the Act. The assessee is a company engaged in the business of providing service to the Renewable Energy entities. The assessee filed its return

RAINA GARG,BHOPAL vs. CIT(A), DELHI

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Raina Garg, Ito-4(1), Prop. M/S. Garg Trading Bhopal Company, बनाम/ Purana Kabadkhana, Vs. Jumerati, Bhopal (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Aawpg4732F Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12.02.2024

7 of 18 Raina Garg, Bhopal ITA No. 334/Ind/2023 – AY 2015-16 two unconnected variables i.e. interest rate of 15% paid by assessee on ‘unsecured loans’ with interest rate of 12% paid on ‘secured loans’ to bank. Nobody can dispute that the interest rate on unsecured loans would always be higher because the lender would charge a premium for taking

M/S RADHISHWARI DEVLOPERS P LTD,INDORE vs. PR CIT -2 INDORE, INDORE

In the result, Assessee’s appeal in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2013-14 M/S. Radhishwari Developers P. Ltd. (Now Known As R.C. Warehousing Pvt. Ltd. ) Indore : Appellant Pan :Aafcr1916A V/S Pr. Cito-2 : Respondent Indore Appellant By S/Shri Sumit Nema Sr. Adv. With Gagan Tiwari & Piyush Parashar Advs. Revenue By Shri S.S. Mantri, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 24.05.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 20.07.2021

7. You are, accordingly, given an opportunity to attend my office on 25.01.2018 at 3:30 P.M. and produce necessary evidences, explanation, etc in support of your contentions and arguments. If you fail to attend the hearing, it shall be presumed that you have nothing to say in the matter and order u/s 263 shall be passed on merit

AG-8 VENTURES LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ACIT, CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

68,100 Nil 2010-11 71-98 01.04.2011 7,94,27,760 23.09.2015 7,94,27,760 Nil ** 2011-12

AG-8 VENTURES LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ACIT, CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

68,100 Nil 2010-11 71-98 01.04.2011 7,94,27,760 23.09.2015 7,94,27,760 Nil ** 2011-12

DRISHTI DEVCN P LTD ,INDORE vs. THE PCIT-1, INDORE

Appeal is allowed partly

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Drishti Devcon Private The Pcit-1, Limited, Indore 406, Pukhraj Corporate, बनाम/ Navlakha Bus Stand, Vs. Indore

68,95,000/- on the alleged ground that the order is erroneous since complete enquiries have not been made as per him. The Appellant prays that the action of AO be held to be not erroneous and prejudicial to interests of revenue and the direction to examine the same again be set aside and quashed. 4. On the facts

SMT. ANNAPURNA MAHESHWARI,INDORE vs. THE ITO-4(1), INDORE

In the result I.T.A.No.315/Ind/2012& I

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

68 of the Act by both the lower authorities. As the issues raised are common these three appeals were heard together and being disposed off by this common order for sake of convenience and brevity. 4. For the purpose of adjudication we will take up the facts of Smt. Annapurna Maheshwari for Assessment Year 2008-09 relating to I.T.A. No.315/Ind/2012